Trip on a rebound

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Almost every situation I've had a player trip over a prone player is following a rebound and often the prone player is behind the ball-handler, so I wouldn't say it's easy to avoid them.

True, but the player still ultimately has the responsibility to look where he is going.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

True, but the player still ultimately has the responsibility to look where he is going.

Which has nothing to do with the convo Camron and I were having. We were discussing the amount of area on the court a prone player takes up as compared to a player standing in a normal stance. And obviously that matters to the rules makers since players who stand with their knees and elbows outside the frame of their body get called for blocks and illegal screens.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Which has nothing to do with the convo Camron and I were having. We were discussing the amount of area on the court a prone player takes up as compared to a player standing in a normal stance. And obviously that matters to the rules makers since players who stand with their knees and elbows outside the frame of their body get called for blocks and illegal screens.

When the defenders start throwing themselves on the ground to defend the offensive player, then we can have a legitimate conversation about how much space that defender is taking up. Since the player on the floor is not guarding anyone, the point seems kind of moot, doesn't it?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

When the defenders start throwing themselves on the ground to defend the offensive player, then we can have a legitimate conversation about how much space that defender is taking up. Since the player on the floor is not guarding anyone, the point seems kind of moot, doesn't it?

To me it is not important how they got there. I just don't like the rule as the FED interprets it.

What gets called if B1 flops backwards as A1 goes airborne and then A1 lands on some part of B1's body and A1 trips and falls? I know from the time I've been officiating I've been told to call B1 with a block.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

To me it is not important how they got there. I just don't like the rule as the FED interprets it.

What gets called if B1 flops backwards as A1 goes airborne and then A1 lands on some part of B1's body and A1 trips and falls? I know from the time I've been officiating I've been told to call B1 with a block.

How can it be a block on a defender whose only movement was backward, whether he falls to the floor or not?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

To me it is not important how they got there. I just don't like the rule as the FED interprets it.

What gets called if B1 flops backwards as A1 goes airborne and then A1 lands on some part of B1's body and A1 trips and falls? I know from the time I've been officiating I've been told to call B1 with a block.

Originally Posted by just another ref

How can it be a block on a defender whose only movement was backward, whether he falls to the floor or not?

Are you saying you've never heard this?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Are you saying you've never heard this?

I have heard it. I don't see how you justify it.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

To me it is not important how they got there. I just don't like the rule as the FED interprets it.

What gets called if B1 flops backwards as A1 goes airborne and then A1 lands on some part of B1's body and A1 trips and falls? I know from the time I've been officiating I've been told to call B1 with a block.

What you've been told doesn't agree with the rules.

Why should it be a block? If B1 had stayed upright, it would been an obvious and significant charge if the play was such that B1 was able to fall backwards and still get landed on. B1's movement isn't changing that. I can accept not calling the charge when B1 yields the position, but to flip to a block just isn't right.

But that really isn't the case we're talking about.

What we're really talking about is B1 falling across A1's path, not being already in it with LGP and falling back.